The right-leaning populist movement embraces the Founders' vision -- except when it comes to national security, civil liberties and foreign affairs

In Yuval Levin's smart essay, "What Is Constitutional Conservatism," one paragraph stands out as an eloquent statement of what the political philosophy has to offer. "As the framers saw it, both populist and technocratic politics were expressions of a modern hubris about the capacity of human beings -- be it of the experts or of the people as a whole -- to make just the right governing decisions," he writes. "The Constitution is built upon a profound skepticism about the ability of any political arrangement to overcome the limitations of human reason and human nature, and so establishes a system of checks to prevent sudden large mistakes while enabling gradual changes supported by a broad and longstanding consensus. Experts should not govern, nor should the people do so directly, but rather the people's representatives should govern in a system filled with mediating institutions and opposing interests -- a system designed to force us to see problems and proposed solutions from a variety of angles simultaneously."

That is a message for this moment.

The populist temptation is alive on the right, channeled through the Tea Party, and on the left, courtesy of Occupy Wall Street. Either seems capable of "the passing of bad laws through haste, inadvertence, or design," -- that's Alexander Hamilton from Federalist 73, as quoted by Levin -- and the populists themselves are responding largely to the financial crisis, which among many other things is a reminder of how catastrophically America's technocrats can fail us.

As justly enthusiastic as conservatives are about the essay -- it is the cover article in the November 28, 2011 issue of National Review, and has been cited widely since it appeared on the Web -- its author makes a significant mistake. In his telling, the Tea Party is a champion of constitutional governance, "intensely focused on recovering the U.S. Constitution, and especially its limits on government power." In fact, that is a focus of its rhetoric, which is misleading. To give the Tea Party its due, the movement has drawn attention to
America's alarming deficits, and it genuinely want to shrink specific
parts of the federal budget, for better and worse. I personally agree
with Tea Partiers about the desirability of entitlement reform, the
questionable wisdom of the Affordable Care Act, the fiscal threat represented by public employee pensions, and the need to rein in unaccountable agencies in the federal bureaucracy.

So why don't I embrace the Tea Party? Largely due to the tendency of almost the whole GOP coalition, including most Tea Partiers and all but one of the national candidates they champion, to support a more powerful, far-reaching, extra-constitutional state, so long as it is ostensibly being used to fight the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. It seems fair to say that Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich are all politicians with substantial support in the Tea Party, especially if you count folks who like their worldviews but don't think they're ready to be the GOP presidential nominee. Now imagine that American policy were determined by polling those figures on various subjects of controversy.

Call it the Tea Party Congress.

The Tea Party Congress would approve the president's right to kill Americans accused of terrorism without due process; his prerogative to launch wars without Congressional approval, even when there is no imminent threat to the American homeland; waterboarding; warrantless spying on American citizens, without even the requirement that they be told they were under surveillance; constant use of the state secrets privilege; aggressive use of asset forfeiture by federal, state and local police; racial profiling of Muslim Americans; and various local obstacles to Muslim Americans building mosques, whether at Ground Zero or in Tennessee or elsewhere.

It is true that President Obama embraces some of these powers, to his eternal discredit; and that none are the central focus of the Tea Party; but that does nothing to change the fact that government by the Tea Party, or the Republican establishment, or a coalition made up of both groups, would embrace the War on Terrorism's most alarming excesses and continue our decade long trend away from being governed in strict accordance with the United States Constitution.

That isn't to say that no one is fighting back. On the right, Ron and Rand Paul, the latter a Tea Party candidate, come to mind. But neither are champions of the average Tea Party participant.

Says Levin, in his conclusion, "In this time of grave challenges, conservatives must work to protect the fundamentally constitutionalist character of the Tea Party, and of the conservative movement -- avoiding the excesses of both populism and technocracy as we work to undo the damage done by both, and to recover the American project." That is sound advice for conservatives, and liberals would do well to avoid the excesses of populism and technocracy too. But the American project wasn't in fact launched in reaction to populism or technocracy, however wisely and deliberately it guarded against them. What the Founders feared more than anything was that government would be captured by a tyrant with the mindset of a King George.

As a minority within the Tea Party and others sympathetic to it understand, the War on Terrorism is both a fight to preserve our safety and a threat to liberty and limited government, especially when partisans of one president or another undermine our system of checks and balances in its name. You'd think, given the Tea Party's priorities, that liberty is most often lost after a nation passes an individual mandate for health care or increases tax rates on the rich. But it is historical fact that war profoundly empowers and expands the state more than anything else.

That is true even of just wars. The Civil War, World War II and the Cold War were all rife with excesses. Guardians of liberty and the constitution should be most attune to war's corrosive effect.

It is conducive to the most extreme abuses of civil liberties.

Elsewhere in the world, many a tyrant has some to power by taking advantage of wartime powers willingly conceded.

Better to be governed by a "constitutional conservative" than a populist or technocrat, or so I'd argue. But more dangerous than a president sympathetic to populism or technocracy is one who would seize all the war powers that John Yoo would give him. Aside from Ron Paul, every Tea Party affiliated Election 2012 candidate for president seems to think such radical powers are the president's due. Aside from the power to torture, President Obama himself substantially agrees.

It would be helpful if those at National Review, the Heritage Foundation, and elsewhere would stand up to this bipartisan move toward a kingly executive who reigns over an endless War on Terrorism, unchecked in his powers, as if that is what's needed to keep America safe. Instead, establishment conservatives and Tea Partiers alike are more likely than not to defend Dick Cheney, David Addington, the Patriot Act, the indefinite detention of American citizens, stripping the judiciary of its power, presidential assassinations of American citizens, and all the rest.

Many of these people claim to be constitutional conservatives, but are ardent about that disposition only in domestic affairs. If national security, police powers, or foreign affairs are implicated, they are constitutional conservatives in name only, blind to executive branch excesses corrosive to individual liberty and often even to the constitution itself. Why would a liberty-minded voter, or one dedicated to the Constitution, be satisfied with a movement of that sort?

The Tea Party has sent a few good people to Congress, but should any of the presidential candidates it has elevated triumph, constitutional conservatives won't have any good choice in general election 2012. And that failure ought to merit space in every essay on the disposition. Returning to Levin's wise words, ask yourself this. Is the Tea Party's approach to the War on Terrorism built upon "a system of checks to prevent sudden large mistakes while enabling
gradual changes supported by a broad and longstanding consensus"? Are Tea Partiers urging that national security policy be made via "a system filled with mediating institutions and opposing interests -- a
system designed to force us to see problems and proposed solutions from a
variety of angles simultaneously"? Quite the contrary. Its approach isn't always unconstitutional.

About the Author

Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction.

Most Popular

Congressional Republicans and conservative pundits had the chance to signal Trump his attacks on law enforcement are unacceptable—but they sent the opposite message.

President Trump raged at his TV on Sunday morning. And yet on balance, he had a pretty good weekend. He got a measure of revenge upon the hated FBI, firing former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe two days before his pension vested. He successfully coerced his balky attorney general, Jeff Sessions, into speeding up the FBI’s processes to enable the firing before McCabe’s retirement date.

Beyond this vindictive fun for the president, he achieved something politically important. The Trump administration is offering a not very convincing story about the McCabe firing. It is insisting that the decision was taken internally by the Department of Justice, and that the president’s repeated and emphatic demands—public and private—had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

The first female speaker of the House has become the most effec­tive congressional leader of modern times—and, not coinciden­tally, the most vilified.

Last May, TheWashington Post’s James Hohmann noted “an uncovered dynamic” that helped explain the GOP’s failure to repeal Obamacare. Three current Democratic House members had opposed the Affordable Care Act when it first passed. Twelve Democratic House members represent districts that Donald Trump won. Yet none voted for repeal. The “uncovered dynamic,” Hohmann suggested, was Nancy Pelosi’s skill at keeping her party in line.

She’s been keeping it in line for more than a decade. In 2005, George W. Bush launched his second presidential term with an aggressive push to partially privatize Social Security. For nine months, Republicans demanded that Democrats admit the retirement system was in crisis and offer their own program to change it. Pelosi refused. Democratic members of Congress hosted more than 1,000 town-hall meetings to rally opposition to privatization. That fall, Republicans backed down, and Bush’s second term never recovered.

Invented centuries ago in France, the bidet has never taken off in the States. That might be changing.

“It’s been completely Americanized!” my host declares proudly. “The bidet is gone!” In my time as a travel editor, this scenario has become common when touring improvements to hotels and resorts around the world. My heart sinks when I hear it. To me, this doesn’t feel like progress, but prejudice.

Americans seem especially baffled by these basins. Even seasoned American travelers are unsure of their purpose: One globe-trotter asked me, “Why do the bathrooms in this hotel have both toilets and urinals?” And even if they understand the bidet’s function, Americans often fail to see its appeal. Attempts to popularize the bidet in the United States have failed before, but recent efforts continue—and perhaps they might even succeed in bringing this Old World device to new backsides.

As the Trump presidency approaches a troubling tipping point, it’s time to find the right term for what’s happening to democracy.

Here is something that, even on its own, is astonishing: The president of the United States demanded the firing of the former FBI deputy director, a career civil servant, after tormenting him both publicly and privately—and it worked.

The American public still doesn’t know in any detail what Andrew McCabe, who was dismissed late Friday night, is supposed to have done. But citizens can see exactly what Donald Trump did to McCabe. And the president’s actions are corroding the independence that a healthy constitutional democracy needs in its law enforcement and intelligence apparatus.

McCabe’s firing is part of a pattern. It follows the summary removal of the previous FBI director and comes amid Trump’s repeated threats to fire the attorney general, the deputy attorney, and the special counsel who is investigating him and his associates. McCabe’s ouster unfolded against a chaotic political backdrop which includes Trump’s repeated calls for investigations of his political opponents, demands of loyalty from senior law enforcement officials, and declarations that the job of those officials is to protect him from investigation.

How evangelicals, once culturally confident, became an anxious minority seeking political protection from the least traditionally religious president in living memory

One of the most extraordinary things about our current politics—really, one of the most extraordinary developments of recent political history—is the loyal adherence of religious conservatives to Donald Trump. The president won four-fifths of the votes of white evangelical Christians. This was a higher level of support than either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, an outspoken evangelical himself, ever received.

Trump’s background and beliefs could hardly be more incompatible with traditional Christian models of life and leadership. Trump’s past political stances (he once supported the right to partial-birth abortion), his character (he has bragged about sexually assaulting women), and even his language (he introduced the words pussy and shithole into presidential discourse) would more naturally lead religious conservatives toward exorcism than alliance. This is a man who has cruelly publicized his infidelities, made disturbing sexual comments about his elder daughter, and boasted about the size of his penis on the debate stage. His lawyer reportedly arranged a $130,000 payment to a porn star to dissuade her from disclosing an alleged affair. Yet religious conservatives who once blanched at PG-13 public standards now yawn at such NC-17 maneuvers. We are a long way from The Book of Virtues.

Much more than time separates the 27th president from the 45th: from their vastly different views on economics, to their conceptions of the presidency itself.

As Donald Trump’s executive orders punishing steel and aluminum imports threaten a trade war around the globe, Republicans on Capitol Hill are debating whether to reassert Congress’s ultimate constitutional authority over tariffs and trade. This isn’t the first time the GOP has split itself in two on the question of protective tariffs. But the last time, just over 100 years ago, the Republican president’s policies were the exact opposite of Trump’s.

William Howard Taft—in his opposition to populism and protectionism, as well as his devotion to constitutional limits on the powers of the presidency—was essentially the anti-Trump. Unlike the current president, and his own predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft refused to rule by executive order, insisting that the chief executive could only exercise those powers that the Constitution explicitly authorizes.

Among the more practical advice that can be offered to international travelers is wisdom of the bathroom. So let me say, as someone who recently returned from China, that you should be prepared to one, carry your own toilet paper and two, practice your squat.

I do not mean those goofy chairless sits you see at the gym. No, toned glutes will not save you here. I mean the deep squat, where you plop your butt down as far as it can go while staying aloft and balanced on the heels. This position—in contrast to deep squatting on your toes as most Americans naturally attempt instead—is so stable that people in China can hold it for minutes and perhaps even hours ...

The debate around sexual-harassment legislation is playing out in the Maryland General Assembly, where reform advocates say leadership is loath to embrace changes.

In Maryland, legislative sessions run 90 days, from January through early April. On the final day of each session—commonly referred to by the Latin term sine die—the capital city of Annapolis lets its hair down. There is dining and dancing and parties galore as aides, lawmakers, and lobbyists celebrate having survived the season.

A few years back, at one sine die soiree hosted by a legislator, a former Annapolis aide (who requested anonymity because she remains involved in Maryland politics) took to the dance floor. “I was dancing a little bit by myself,” she recalled. “All of a sudden I hear, ‘You’re packing a little bit more than I thought back here!’ I turn around, and this legislator is dancing right behind me. I was like, ‘Ooookay. This is a little weird. I know your wife and kids.’ So I tried to subtly move away.” The legislator followed, recalled the ex-aide. And then: “He got aroused.” The young woman made a swift escape, and, she informed me, “I have not spoken to that legislator one-on-one since.”

Scholars have been sounding the alarm about data-harvesting firms for nearly a decade. The latest Cambridge Analytica scandal shows it may be too late to stop them.

On Friday night, Facebook suspended the account of Cambridge Analytica, the political-data company backed by the billionaire Robert Mercer that consulted on both the Brexit and Trump campaigns.

The action came just before The Guardian and The New York Timesdropped major reports in which the whistle-blower Christopher Wylie alleged that Cambridge Analytica had used data that an academic had allegedly improperly exfiltrated from the social network. These new stories, backed by Wylie’s account and internal documents, followed years of reporting by The Guardianand The Intercept about the possible problem.

The details could seem Byzantine. Aleksandr Kogan, then a Cambridge academic, founded a company, Global Science Research, and immediately took on a major client, Strategic Communication Laboratories, which eventually gave birth to Cambridge Analytica. (Steve Bannon, an adviser to the company and a former senior adviser to Trump, reportedly picked the name.)

The Supreme Court will consider the rights of crisis pregnancy centers, which help women “imagine what the choice of life would be like.”

Abortion is back in the Supreme Court this week. On Tuesday, the justices will hear a case on crisis pregnancy centers, the facilities established by pro-life organizations around the country to counsel women against abortion. In 2015, California passed the Reproductive FACT Act, requiring licensed clinics that provide certain services—including ultrasounds, pregnancy tests, and advice on birth control—to post information about affordable abortion and contraception services offered by the state. Unlicensed facilities that provide these services have to disclose their lack of medical certification. A network of crisis pregnancy centers, including the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), sued in response, arguing that the government is violating their right to free speech by forcing them to promote abortion.